The long-term policies of Russification imposed by the Tsar in the 1880s, caused a lot of political unrest within Russia and these contributed to the 1905 revolution. Russia was the only country within Europe with no elected national parliament. The only form of elected representation (what the Tsar referred to as ‘senseless dreams’) was the “Zemstva”. The Union of Liberation demanded in December 1904, that a parliament should be set up because they felt the Russian population needed an outlet to express their views. At the time, the formation of political parties was illegal but despite this, they still existed.
Under the term of Pyotr Stolypin as Prime Minister (1906-11), hundreds of opponents were hanged - earning the hangman’s noose the nickname - ‘the Stolypin necktie’. Under high Stalinisim in the 1930s and 1940s, thousands were executed and up to 2.5 million ‘zeks’ sent to the Gulags of Siberia. However, many individual rulers did much to change Russian government, despite the apparent similarities. Khrushchev for example, introduced ‘decentralisation’, which involved the creation of the Sovnarkhozy (regional governments). Alexander II also attempted to bring about some degree of devolution with the creation of the Zemstra (regional councils).
Where the two governments differ is in the respect of tolerance towards cooperation with others. In Alexander III's Tsarist autocracy, minsters were personally chosen by the Tsar, and could only advise him-he still had to make the decisions himself. In addition, all other political parties in Tsarist times were banned, through methods such as arresting members of opposing political parties and censoring the press. In Lenin's Communist dictatorship, Lenin instead chose to work with members in committees such as the Sovnarkom and the Politburo in order
“Opposition to Russian governments was ineffective in the period from 1855 to 1964”. How far do you agree with this view? Opposition throughout the period from 1855 to 1964 can be seen as any group of people opposing, criticising or protesting against the Government. There was significant opposition to Russian governments across the period and there were several different forms of opposition. The effectiveness of these groups can be judged in terms of the outcomes of their actions.
Brutal Force Throughout the many years and before the start of the Russian Revolution, violence, coercion, terror and compromise played a big role in enforcing the government and in making the people and revolutionaries in Russia happy so there would be no overthrow of leading government officials. As we see in the October Manifesto, the tsar was compelled to sign the document to compromise with the people only so he would not be overthrown or executed, also in the Constitution of 1918 and 1924 which were written to establish the new state of Russia and to help keep the new state in tact. We also see acts of violence to help keep rule and enforce government through Bloody Sunday and State and Revolution written by Lenin. The use of compromise
In the case of the Provisional Government they changed it from autocratic to democratic and Lenin changed it to a one party state; although the result was different the basis was the same. In some cases all of the rulers passed reforms that they had no choice whether to or not, it was simply necessary. All of the Tsars wanted to uphold their autocratic position, Alexander III most of all due to what happened to his father, so keeping absolute control was essential. Nicholas II was the only tsar to make any major political reforms due to the Tsar’s wanted to keep their power. However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position.
The top-down approach the rulers of Russia had in the period 1855-1964 were superficially different as the communists claimed to represent the people by giving power to the proletariat where as the Tsars were heavily elitist in their ideology. The communists’ efforts to represent the people is corroborated by the introduction of the soviet by the Provisional Government, which was organised as a grassroots effort to practice direct democracy. Although the presence of the Zemstva and Duma, introduced by Alexander II and Nicholas II respectively, presents some evidence the Tsars may have attempted to give Russia a sense of democracy, it was ran by the nobility so it was not representative of the people and thus heavily autocratic in their rule. Conversely, although the communists and the Tsars appear to have ruled differently in their top-down approach, they in fact did not because in practice the communists gave an extremely limited extent of power to the proletariat. The Provisional Government’s vacillating rule on the other hand, from heavily autocratic to democratic led to the governments demise.
The Tsars believed that they ruled by divine right; so they believed that they were God’s appointed ruler on earth. Lenin did not have a legitimate claim to ruling Russia. The Tsars were brought up knowing that one day they would rule over an empire, whereas Lenin had no training or experience in government. The Tsars inherited the throne when their fathers died whereas Lenin was the leader of a minority party who seized control by force and then forced their will upon the Russian people. This indicates how there would have been a distinct difference in the way the Russian people saw who was governing them.
Document 10 explains an economic factor that contributed to the Russian Revolution. Russia, at the time, was not economically ready for the World War I. But, because they were forced to fight by Tsar Nikolas II, which made Russia weak. In Document 9, Miliukov accuses the government for causing the Revolution because of treason. He describes the government as disorganized.
Since the fall of communism in 1991, the Russian Federation has been blighted by accusations of human rights abuse. Under Vladimir Putin, the FSB has been accused of acting with impunity and there have been allegations of gross abuse across many specters of Russian society. According to European Court of Human Rights, as of 31/12/2007, 26% of all cases regarding violations of human rights stem from Russia . Over the course of this essay, I will attempt to highlight the issues, which in my view, are the leading violations of human rights in the Russian federation. I will primarily focus on four key elements.